architecture · diff
git:20260610.52b7df7 to git:20260710.52a3b74
6 added, 10 removed. Audit B to B.
---
name: architecture
description: Proactive architecture review — explore codebase structure, generate a self-contained HTML report with Mermaid diagrams and candidate improvements, then grill the findings. Use when planning a large refactor, onboarding to an unfamiliar codebase, or before a major architectural change.
---
# /supergraph:architecture
Three phases: explore → HTML report → grilling loop.
Announce: "🏛️ /supergraph:architecture — mapping codebase structure..."
## Phase 1 — Explore
**1a. Read CONTEXT.md:**
```bash
cat CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No CONTEXT.md"
```
- **1b. Graph overview (optional — skip gracefully if MCP unavailable):**
- ```
- mcp__code-review-graph__get_architecture_overview_tool()
- mcp__code-review-graph__get_hub_nodes_tool()
- mcp__code-review-graph__get_bridge_nodes_tool()
- mcp__code-review-graph__list_communities_tool()
- mcp__code-review-graph__get_surprising_connections_tool()
- mcp__code-review-graph__get_knowledge_gaps_tool()
- ```
- If graph MCP unavailable → log "Graph MCP unavailable, using filesystem exploration only" and proceed with 1c/1d. Generate Mermaid diagrams from directory/import structure instead of graph data.
+ **1b. Codebase Memory overview (optional):**
+ Use `CBM_PROJECT` with `get_architecture` aspects `overview`, `layers`,
+ `boundaries`, `clusters`, and `hotspots`. After `get_graph_schema`, run shared
+ contract recipes `hubs`, `bridges`, `cross-boundary`, and `test-gaps`.
+ If codebase-memory-mcp is unavailable, label graph evidence `unavailable`, use
+ Serena/filesystem evidence, and generate Mermaid diagrams from imports.
**1c. Serena structure (optional):**
```
mcp__serena__get_symbols_overview()
```
**1d. Read 3-5 hub node files** — understand actual structure, naming, patterns.
## Phase 2 — Generate HTML Report
Write a self-contained HTML file to `docs/supergraph/architecture-review-<YYYY-MM-DD>.html`.
Structure:
```html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Architecture Review — [Project] — [Date]</title>
<script src="https://cdn.tailwindcss.com"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mermaid/dist/mermaid.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body class="bg-gray-50 p-8 font-sans">
<!-- Header -->
<h1>Architecture Review: [Project]</h1>
<p>[Date] | [N communities] | [N hub nodes] | [N bridge nodes]</p>
<!-- Current Architecture Diagram -->
<h2>Current Architecture</h2>
<div class="mermaid">
graph TD
[community nodes and edges from graph data]
</div>
<!-- Candidate Improvements -->
<!-- One card per candidate -->
<div class="candidate-card">
<h3>[Candidate N]: [Short name]</h3>
<span class="badge">[Strong / Worth exploring / Speculative]</span>
<p><strong>Problem:</strong> [what's wrong now]</p>
<p><strong>Proposal:</strong> [what to change]</p>
<h4>Before</h4>
<div class="mermaid">graph TD; [before state]</div>
<h4>After</h4>
<div class="mermaid">graph TD; [after state]</div>
<p><strong>Impact:</strong> [blast radius, effort, risk]</p>
<p><strong>Trade-offs:</strong> [pros / cons]</p>
</div>
<!-- Knowledge Gaps -->
<h2>Test Coverage Gaps</h2>
[table of untested hotspot files]
<!-- Surprising Connections -->
<h2>Unexpected Coupling</h2>
[list of surprise connections with scores]
</body>
</html>
```
**Recommendation strength badges:**
- `Strong` — clear problem, low risk, high ROI
- `Worth exploring` — plausible improvement, some uncertainty
- `Speculative` — possible but needs investigation
Open report automatically:
```bash
open docs/supergraph/architecture-review-<date>.html \
|| xdg-open docs/supergraph/architecture-review-<date>.html \
|| echo "Report saved: docs/supergraph/architecture-review-<date>.html"
```
## Phase 3 — Grilling Loop
For each Strong candidate, ask one focused question:
> "Candidate N proposes [X]. Is this consistent with [constraint from CONTEXT.md / known business rule]?"
Incorporate answers to refine the candidate cards. Mark dismissed candidates as `Rejected — [reason]`.
After grilling, present final prioritized list:
```
Strong candidates (ready for /supergraph:plan):
1. [Name] — [one-line rationale]
Worth exploring (needs spike first):
2. [Name] — [open question to resolve]
Speculative (park for later):
3. [Name] — [what would need to be true]
```
## Report
```
✅ /supergraph:architecture complete
- Report: docs/supergraph/architecture-review-<date>.html
- Communities: N | Hub nodes: N | Bridge nodes: N
- Candidates: N Strong, N Worth exploring, N Speculative
- Next: /supergraph:plan (for Strong candidates) or /supergraph:prototype (for uncertain ones)
```
## Rules
- Always open the HTML file automatically
- Mermaid diagrams must reflect actual graph data, not invented structure
- Speculative candidates must be labeled — never present guesses as strong recommendations
- Update CONTEXT.md if review revealed undocumented architectural invariants:
```bash
printf '\n## <invariant>\n[description]\n' >> CONTEXT.md
```
- If graph was empty or unavailable, note "Diagram generated from filesystem structure" in the HTML report header